Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Arizona Legislature’

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/h/hotblack/preview/fldr_2008_11_02/file0002062790027.jpgYesterday I got another mass email from the State Bar of Arizona (SBA). “Last Chance to Answer the State Bar of Arizona Member Survey” declared the subject line. “Please take a few minutes NOW to fill out the survey.”  And then to sweeten my interest, “As a token of our appreciation for your prompt response, we’ll enter your name into a raffle to win a $100 Visa gift card.” 

As usual, I ignore the Bar’s survey requests. This was the third mass email about the same topic. After the second email, I asked for a blank copy of the survey questions. After a couple of days, the Bar’s public relations chief emailed a copy. The survey runs 9 pages and 48 questions. By my stopwatch, it won’t “take a few minutes” to answer. Not like it matters. I won’t be taking the survey and humbly suggest no one else should either.

Long ago I worked for a guy whose favorite expression was the blindingly obvious, “Timing is everything.” So right in the middle of a big fight at the Arizona Legislature to reform the State Bar comes a self-serving survey replete with the usual leading questions. Talk about timing.

The questions are meant to lead survey-takers down the Bar’s primrose path. Tell us “how valuable” a member benefit is? “How well does the SBA deliver . . . .”

It’s been a while since I read Elizabeth Barrett Browning but in other words, “How Do I Love Thee?” The State Bar of Arizona wants us to “count the ways.”

And among the 48 questions is the one nearest to the unsated stomach of every bloated bureaucrat, “If the SBA could provide you with one additional resource or service that currently is not offered, what would it be?”

Just in case, there’s a second follow-up that fishes for “a second additional resource or service” to add to your expense line. Missing is the better question, “Does this program make me look fat?”

Buried in the questionnaire is the seemingly innocuous question No. 45, “Do you have a succession plan for continuation of your practice in the event that you are unable to continue in the practice of law due to death, disability, or bar discipline?” On that last point of “bar discipline,” Arizona lawyers may not all be aware of this but the Bar recently made a succession plan a mandatory ethical obligation. So if you answer in the negative and then disclose your identity to enter the raffle, beware you aren’t also entering an unintended second raffle for a bar complaint.

The truth is this survey like all the others isn’t intended to identify or to serve members’ interests. These surveys only serve the Bar’s interests. They are tools to drive the Bar’s mission-creeping agenda and to cover its analysis (CYA).

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/h/hrustall/12/p/c6de1ef8a0319f6a6dfcd0c22fb8b06d.jpgMoreover, the survey and whatever the results may be — either good or bad — serve as a sword and a shield the Bar employs to hide behind or to flagellate critics, especially those ‘pests’ at the Arizona Legislature.

No matter if the Bar again gets an underwhelming response. It usually does. By overwhelming numbers, members ignore these surveys knowing full well what the agenda is about — $100 Visa gift card or not.

But just the same, count on the Bar to loudly trumpet the fake news: ‘Look at the great job we’re doing! Members love us.’ Such pronouncements will continue to fly in the face of reality. How can you dare to assess the satisfaction of captive members forced to join and forced to finance an ever-expanding bureaucratic empire in order to earn a living as lawyers?

And finally leaving absolutely no doubt its intentions comes the money paragraph: “The survey will help us serve you better. It’s also critical to the long-term success of State Bar of Arizona.”

This from the same organization that as ordered by the state supreme court “exists to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.”

There again is the State Bar of Arizona’s two-headed conflict of interest. It rears its two heads once more. Serve and protect the public but at the same time serve and protect the interests of lawyers —“help us serve you better.”

Reminds me of Jerry Maguire — minus the humor. ‘Help me, help you.’

______________________________

Photos: Via Morguefile.com, no attribution required.

Read Full Post »

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/a/almogaver/preview/fldr_2008_11_07/file000136151699.jpgYesterday, Arizona took one more step toward reforming the way lawyers are regulated in the state. By a vote of 31-29, the Arizona House passed HB2295. This bill splits the State Bar of Arizona into two subsets. One preserves the mandatory membership character in order to function as an independent regulatory quasi-agency that makes paramount the protection of the public from unethical lawyers. The other subset becomes a voluntary organization that engages solely in the kinds of non-regulatory activities more traditionally associated with professional trade associations. It’s worth watching the HB2295 floor debate here starting at the 3:34 minute mark.

A conflicted identity.

Politicians 81Like mandatory bars elsewhere, the Arizona Bar suffers from what former Wisconsin State Bar President Steven Levine once described as “a schizophrenic identity.”

In a just published post at The Legal Watchdog, Wisconsin lawyer, blogger, author and scholar Michael Cicchini mentions the article, State Bar’s limits on financial transparency create budgetary blind spots (subscription required) where author James Briggs writes that “The State Bar straddles a line between being a state agency, under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and a private corporation, which is not compelled to share financial information even with the people elected to govern it.” The author then quotes Levine on the Wisconsin Bar.

FunHouse 119But Levine could just as easily be referring to Arizona’s Bar while talking about Wisconsin, “When it comes to the advantages of being a state entity . . . they claim to be a state agency.  But when they want to act in private or in secret and avoid all public requirements state agencies are required to follow, they say they’re just a private organization.”1

Case in point when I filed a public records request last July with the State Bar of Arizona asking for lobbying expenditure disclosures concerning its opposition to bar reform legislation, the Bar’s response included the following lawyer doublespeak: “However, without waiving our right to assert any future objections applicable to a nonprofit organization either by rule or statute, this organization believes in transparency and will provide answers when possible.”

arizona_bar_frank2

Can’t serve two masters or walk around with two heads.

Two hats for two heads.2

By deunifying the regulator/trade association functions, HB2295 solves the longtime problem the State Bar of Arizona has been burdened with, which is trying to serve two masters by wearing two hats for two heads. The result has been an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Why? Because the interests of the public and the interests of lawyers are not the same. More often than not, they are in conflict.

Consequently, the State Bar should not simultaneously serve the interests of the public and the interests of the legal profession. If it truly means to protect the public, then the interests of the public have to be foremost. Because HB2295 separates the State Bar’s regulatory and disciplinary functions from the State Bar’s trade association services and activities, it improves the protection of the public from lawyers who violate the canons of professional ethics.

Moreover, by dividing the regulatory and disciplinary functions from its lawyer trade association activities and transferring all regulation to the Arizona Supreme Court, HB2295 helps to bring lawyer regulation more fully compliant with the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC.

In Dental Examiners, the nation’s high court ruled that state regulatory bodies controlled by “active market participants” – such as practicing lawyers -­ are not immune from federal antitrust laws. The solution then, as provided under paragraph B of HB2295 is “active supervision” by the state Supreme Court or by an independent body under the Court — not controlled by practicing lawyers. Despite the recent work of a Court State Bar task force, the State Bar of Arizona continues to operate under a lawyer-dominant governing board elected by lawyers.

HB2295 now moves to the Arizona Senate where the State Bar of Arizona hopes its lobbyists and well-paid executives can sustain a firewall sufficient to stop the spread of reform.

__________________________________________

1 Some 14 years ago, in a First Amendment suit against the State Bar of Arizona brought by former bar member Edmund Kahn, the U.S. District Court for Arizona in an unpublished opinion discussed whether a state bar was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Arizona Bar, which usually asserts it’s a private association not a state agency, tried in this instance to hide behind the Eleventh Amendment by claiming a “level of integration between the State Bar and the Arizona Supreme Court.” The Court distinguished the cases the State Bar invoked, which were Bates v. State Bar of Arizona involving lawyer discipline; Hoover v. Ronwin concerning bar exams and another discipline case in O’Connor v. State of Nevada. The District Court stated that when it comes to cases that generally challenge either the state bar’s disciplinary function or its function administering bar exams and admitting new lawyers, “the state bar clearly acts as an arm of the Arizona Supreme Court in regulating the practice of law.” But the District Court next made a most critical distinction, “In this case, Plaintiff challenges the way in which the state bar spends mandatory dues on non-regulatory functions and the bar’s procedures for addressing objections to its spending. Because this suit challenges the bar’s spending on non-regulatory programs, the link between the state bar and the Arizona Supreme Court is more tenuous.” The Court then went on to declare that the State Bar, a “non-profit corporation” did not qualify as a state agency for Eleventh Amendment purposes because among other factors, it also maintained “its own treasury and any award of damages would come from the state bar’s funds rather than the state treasury.”

2 Cartoon inspired by a bar executive’s email reference to a lawmaker last session counterintuitively overlooking the Bar’s own 800 lb Chimera in its parlor when describing a bifurcated state bar as “a two-headed Frankenstein.”

 

 

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/UserpageCOI.svg/262px-UserpageCOI.svg.pngThe movement begun in Nebraska in 2013 to deunify the regulatory and trade association functions of mandatory bar associations continues. On January 13, 2017,  Representative Anthony Kern introduced HB 2295 and HB 2300  to improve public protection by eliminating the Arizona Bar’s regulator and trade association conflict of interest. Yesterday, both bills were assigned to House Committees for their respective hearings.

https://i1.wp.com/azleg.gov/alisImages/MemberPhotos/52leg/House/KERN.gif

Rep. Anthony Kern

According to Kern, “The bills resolve the conflict of interest that exists when a quasi-public organization that licenses lawyers and is supposed to regulate their conduct also remains beholden to lawyer interests. Neither the public or lawyers are going to be well served by such a conflict. The two missions – protecting the public and serving lawyers – do not work well together.”

In accord with its prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government and its duty to uphold the Arizona Constitution, HB2295 represents a determination by the Arizona Legislature that the protection of the public is the highest priority. And that in the licensing, regulating, and disciplining of attorneys in the state, the protection of the public is paramount over other interests sought to be promoted. This bill goes to the heart of the conflict outlined by Kern.

Trade Association and Regulator.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Berckheyde%2C_Jan_-_A_Notary_in_His_Office_-_1672.jpg/378px-Berckheyde%2C_Jan_-_A_Notary_in_His_Office_-_1672.jpgThe State Bar of Arizona tries to be all things to all people — but it can’t. Through the years it has employed various semantical machinations to reframe its trade association functions as enhancements to the legal profession. At the same time, it has also articulated a competing mission to serve the public. Indeed, under an updated rule iteration, it now says its mission is “to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.”

Semantical gyrations notwithstanding, the regulator/trade association conflict of interest remains intractable and irreconcilable.

In addition to doing away with those conflicted interests, HB2295 also reinforces First Amendment free speech and associational freedoms. Proponents also contend it would help lower the high cost to practice law in the state. HB2295 is similar to last session’s HB2221, which fell 5 votes shy of reaching the governor’s desk for signing.

A Voluntary Bar.

Consistent with the Arizona Legislature’s prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government and its duty to uphold the Arizona Constitution, HB2300 provides that to the extent provided by the state constitution, all lawyer regulatory and public protection functions are transferred exclusively to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The bill also provides that an attorney shall not be required to be a member of any organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona. By eliminating compulsory bar membership, HB2300 remedially makes the determination by the Legislature that conditioning the practice of law on bar membership violates the rights to free speech and free association guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.

California Bar Deunification.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Map_of_USA_highlighting_California.pngThe Arizona Legislature is not alone in its quest to reform the way lawyers are regulated. According to a report in the ABA Journal, during its last legislative session, the California Assembly “unanimously approved a bill that would have mandated a nonlawyer majority on the bar’s board of trustees to address the antitrust problem, and created a commission to study splitting the bar into a state agency that regulates lawyers and a separate private, voluntary trade group.”

The California Bill failed to pass after the Bar rallied opposition in the Senate. But the fight is far from over. It resumes this session. And the pressure for reform mounts. For example, because of policy changes to the governance of the California Bar that adversely impacted California Bar Section operations, including the Bar’s focus on its core regulatory functions, the Sections are currently considering separating from the Bar. The environment created in the past year, combined with the very high overhead and ever-increasing assessment the Sections are unilaterally mandated to pay, the environment has become too difficult for them to reasonably survive or thrive.

_____________________________________________________

Credit: UserpageCOI.svg, public domain, Wikimedia Commons; Berckheyde, Jan – A Notary in His Office – 1672.jpg, public domain, Wikimedia Commons; Map of USA highlighting California.png, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License, Wikimedia Commons.

.

Read Full Post »

Right now, the State Bar of Arizona can spend attorneys’ mandatory dues on anything it wants to so long as the expenditure is related to improving the practice of law through the regulation of attorneys.  By its own interpretation, that could mean lobbying, conventions, financial contributions to special interest bar associations, office buildings, and who knows what else.  The Bar reads this permission so broadly, you can drive a dump truck through it.

Meantime, down at the Arizona Legislature, after almost 4 weeks, final votes are still pending on about 200 bills, including two measures concerning the State Bar of Arizona. All bills, though, are on hold, including the state bar bills. This is because at the beginning of April, Arizona’s governor set a legislative priority on the state budget. Governor Doug Ducey imposed a bill-signing moratorium to stop any more bills from hitting his desk until a state spending plan was finalized. The end of the month has come but budget negotiations continue.

The key state bar legislation this session is HB 2221. If it passes, the State Bar of Arizona would only be able to force lawyers to pay for attorney regulation and nothing more. Drawing this clear line is crucial to protecting attorneys’ free speech rights. But since the Arizona Bar much prefers the free-spending non-transparent status quo, it has done everything in its power to stop the historic legislation.

To underscore how important the line of demarcation is between free speech and the use of compulsory dues, look no further than the case of North Dakota attorney Arnold Fleck. With his experiences with the North Dakota Bar, Mr. Fleck has learned firsthand how easily mandatory bars can tread on attorney First Amendment rights.  In 2014, he discovered that the North Dakota Bar used nearly $50,000.00 in mandatory bar dues to oppose a shared parenting measure he supported.

Even after he filed a federal lawsuit and the North Dakota Bar consequently revised its policies, he discovered the North Dakota Bar was going to fund a “family law task force” that would propose legislative changes related to shared parenting.  He objected to the use of his dues to fund the task force and his objection went to mediation.  Mediator Karen Klein agreed that his dues could not be used to propose legislation but found his objection was premature because the task force had not yet spent money to that end. “The parameters of the activities the task force will perform are unclear,” she noted in her decision. As a result, Mr. Fleck must stay vigilant just so his dues are not used to fund causes he plainly opposes.

While stating that Mr. Fleck’s focus only on “improving the practice of law through regulation of the profession” was “too narrow,” it’s noteworthy the mediator also said, “I cannot find that all potential activities of the task force are germane under Keller.” Read the entire mediation ruling here.

As the mediator explained the holding in Keller v. State Bar of California, “The U.S. Supreme Court held that when a member of California’s integrated bar objects to his or her dues being used for particular expenditure, the bar may not charge that member dues for those expenditures unless “the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred  for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of the legal services available to the State.”

In sum, attorneys should not be have to constantly police their bar to make sure their free speech rights are not being violated. In Arizona, HB 2221 would solve that problem by forbidding the Bar from using mandatory dues for anything other than regulation. Arizona attorneys should not have to worry about what the Bar is doing with their money. And neither should North Dakota’s Arnold Fleck.

Read Full Post »

Such a Clown! | by *~Dawn~*

Talk about questionable timing. Within days of the coming vote by Arizona’s Senate on a Bill that protects attorney free speech by requiring mandatory State Bar of Arizona dues be used only for attorney regulation, comes a blast email from that Bar’s President soliciting participation in an online attorney compensation survey. “Our hope,” says the email, “is to learn more about the current economic climate so we can better understand and report on trends in the profession, and in turn, serve you better.”

Serve you better? Multiple unwarranted fee hikes later, one of the most imperious and expensive state bars in the country now asks? It’s a bit late to open that stable door after the horse has been sold for glue.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/1811_PoorAuthor_RichBookseller_byWashingtonAllston_MFABoston.jpeg/433px-1811_PoorAuthor_RichBookseller_byWashingtonAllston_MFABoston.jpegBut then that’s the Arizona Bar’s age-old leadership problem. It’s tone-deaf, insular, and bureaucratically backward. And at the risk of piling on, did I also say bloated, inefficient and nontransparent?

The State Bar of Arizona’s real predicament is that while purporting to serve its members — it also tells the public it polices them. Such too, is the member confusion when their regulator claims to want to better serve them. The Arizona Bar simply can’t reconcile the irreconcilable: the inherent conflict of interest of supposedly protecting and serving the public by regulating Arizona’s lawyers while — at the same time — serving as a trade association promoting the common interests of those lawyers.

Meantime, the Bar’s pending legislation worries have everything to do with self-interest. The loss of control over 100% of the mandatory fees paid by Arizona’s lawyers means an unwelcome paradigm shift.

HB 2221 would authorize the Bar to only collect voluntary membership dues for non-regulatory operations. This means that instead of relying on coercion for its funding, a voluntary Arizona Bar would have to attract members who are willing to pay for its services. To its dismay, the Bar would be forced to be competitive. It might need to truly trim overhead and lower its costs.

photoAs for its survey, it appears the Bar anticipates sparse participation. Otherwise, why deign to offer dubious incentives to take its online survey? Participants will be entered into a drawing for a chance to be one of three ‘winners’ of free registration to the Arizona Bar’s Annual “Butt-Numb-A-Thon” Convention“a value of $455 each.” Two additional winners will be selected to receive a $100 Visa gift card.

Besides fees paid to the vendor, the prize incentives mean the survey has an additional cost to members of $1565. The easiest money to spend is always somebody else’s.

It’s also unclear from the Bar’s email if this questionnaire replaces the triennial “Economics of Law Practice in Arizona” survey, which was last done in 2013. Three years ago, the median reported salary for an Arizona sole practitioner with an outside office was $100,000 while the home office solo median was $75,000. (By comparison, if you rely on the puny survey sampling in the Nevada Bar’s Young Lawyer Section Compensation Survey released this month, the median base salary of Nevada young lawyers was $90,000-100,000. The Nevada Young Lawyer survey was based on “160 voluntary respondents” or roughly 2% of the state’s total lawyer population).

In the past,the Arizona Bar has charged members $125 for its complete economics of law practice report. See It’s unknown if the complete results of this current survey will also be sold. For more about legal profession economics, see “How about a raise?”

_______________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Such a Clown” by Dawn Ellner at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution License; “The Poor Author and the Rich Bookseller” by Washington Allston, Wikimedia Commons, public domain;“Riveting meeting,” by Mark Hillary at Flickr via Creative Commons-license requiring attribution.

Read Full Post »

Business 1381How fitting that following an almost hour debate, the very last bill that passed out of the Arizona House at 5 o’clock last Thursday was historic legislation to protect the free speech rights of Arizona attorneys. HB 2221 passed 31-29. Among other provisions, the bill requires that mandatory dues collected by the State Bar of Arizona be used only for regulatory functions and not for nonregulatory activities like it does now. The bill now moves to the Senate.

Attorneys in Arizona must currently belong to a trade association and pay mandatory membership dues as preconditions to earning a living in their chosen profession. Arizona attorneys are the only Arizona professionals bound by such an expedient. What makes this problematic is that the State Bar uses compulsory member dues to not only regulate the practice of law — but to engage in other activities such as lobbying and advocating for ideological and political causes that not all members agree with.

Artists 93The Bar says it “focuses on protecting the public by enhancing the profession, not politics.” In reality, the Bar has an odd way of showing it’s apolitical. Pay no attention, for example, to Bar executives and its lobbyist fighting legislation to eliminate the Bar’s inherent conflict of interest manifest in the claim to protect the public from lawyers while contemporaneously serving lawyer interests.

Last year despite the Bar’s steadfast ongoing opposition to voluntary bar legislation, Bar CEO John Phelps told the ABA’s Bar Leader Magazine, “If we can’t answer the questions about why a mandatory bar is a better model for folks in Arizona, then we ought not to be a required bar.”

The Bar’s resistance has everything to do with preserving a model that protects its bureaucratic self-regard. The loss of most of its mandatory dues monies would mean a sea change for its blithesome bureaucrats.

State Bar’s Free Speech.

Politicians 81Besides reaffirming state supreme court authority over lawyer regulation under the Arizona Constitution, HB 2221 also respects the State Bar’s free speech rights. It does not restrict the Bar’s ability to lobby or take political or ideological positions so long as those activities are voluntarily funded by attorneys. This provision is key because the bar is again distorting facts to serve naked self-interest.

Under Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), the State Bar cannot compel attorneys to fund the Bar’s lobbying activities unrelated to regulating the practice of law. But nothing in Keller prevents the State Bar from collecting voluntary funds from attorneys to engage in any political activity that it wants. Just because the State Bar presently has a policy that it will not engage in political activities beyond those authorized in Keller, there is nothing to stop the Bar from changing that policy tomorrow. As a result, HB 2221 has no bearing on whether or not the State Bar will expand the array of political activities it chooses to engage in with voluntary funds.

Chutzpah redefined.

Game Show Hosts 9And in what can best be characterized as redefining that classic definition of Chutzpah, the Bar has begun audaciously arguing that a vote against HB 2221 would protect attorneys’ First Amendment rights! Why? Because Bar members are supposedly currently protected by U.S. Supreme Court precedent limiting the political speech of mandatory bar associations. The precedential case is Keller v. State Bar of California that held that mandatory membership bar associations can use members’ dues only for regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services — not for political or ideological activities.

FunHouse 119Turning the argument on its head, the State Bar is saying with a straight face that it’s now protecting free speech by lobbying against legislation that protects free speech. It’s a brazen rephrasing: “I was against free speech before I was for free speech.”

Heavens Angels 87Were it truly interested in safeguarding the free speech rights of its members, the Bar would have by now taken affirmative steps and much more meaningful ones than its pious protestations of so-called ‘Keller-purity.’

Moreover, how does lobbying against voluntary bar legislation that has nothing to do with intruding on the Court’s lawyer regulation authority or with improving the quality of legal services satisfy the criteria under Keller? It doesn’t.

Instead, the Bar complies with Keller under the broadest of interpretations. Anything and everything goes so long as the activities encompass “core interests of the mandatory bar, interests of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, or promote advancements in Arizona jurisprudence.” And oh, just in case, there’s the ‘catch-all’ —  “any other activity authorized by law.” See Criteria so expansive you could drive a dump truck through it.”

Assuming members ever find out about objectionable activities — and only after the fact — the Arizona Bar says members have “the option of challenging the Bar to ensure that any position taken is within the Keller guidelines.”  This is a purgative past the point of needing it. What matter if a member objects to the Bar’s lobbying against legislation protecting attorney free speech if the objection occurs after the lobbying has killed the legislation? It’s a nickel-and-dime ‘remedy’ so not much of one.

No separation of powers problem.

Wildlife & Animals 5041The State Bar’s last-ditch efforts to block the bill in the House last week also centered on alleged separation of powers grounds. On the House Floor, Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, a leading opponent argued that the Legislature was overstepping its bounds. He told a local newspaper, “I’m afraid this bill specifically directs the Supreme Court to do certain things. And I’m still concerned this body cannot.”

But this is incorrect as was pointed out in a well-crafted separation of powers legal memorandum that maintains “HB 2221 is consistent with the Legislature’s authority to protect constitutional rights and assure transparency in government, while respecting the Supreme Court’s role in attorney regulation.”

Friese is an Arizona physician. But unlike Arizona attorneys, he is not required to join a professional trade association to practice his profession. His only precondition to earn a living as a doctor is to pay the Arizona Medical Board $500 every two years for regulation and licensing.

Unfortunately, ‘what’s sauce for this goose is not sauce for that gander.’ In spite of the obvious intellectual inconsistency, the good doctor is not dissuaded. He’ll continue carrying water for the Bar against any legislation that puts lawyers on the same footing as his profession.

Read Full Post »

Woman in orange sunglasses uid 1Happy Valentine’s Day!
By coincidence, on the same day attorney Walter H. Bentley III of Southfield, Michigan, made good on his special offer of a free divorce on Valentine’s Day, a bill was heard at the Arizona Legislature that would have enabled Arizona lawyers to ‘divorce’ their friendly state bar.

But easier said than done. Thanks to a 1933 legislative act, the Arizona State Bar was established as an integrated or “mandatory membership organization, which means that if you wanna practice law here — ya’ gotta’ marry the Bar.

 

photoSo comes Arizona State Legislature HB 2480, which proposes“membership of any organization is not required for attorneys to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona.”  Having just paid half a ‘G-note’ in bar dues to keep the shine on the seat of the bureaucrats’ pants, the proposed measure grabs a lawyer’s attention.

Introduced by Republican Representative John Allen, who also sits on the House Judiciary Committee, the proposed legislation additionally, “establishes the Supreme Court as the entity responsible for licensing attorneys for the practice of law in Arizona.”

According to Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel‘s* “First the Arizona House, now the Arizona Senate Judiciary,” HB 2480 is identically worded with a senate version, SB 1414.

photoHowever, ‘it don’t make no never mind.’ As it turned out, following its hearing this morning, HB 2480 was discussed and held, which means it’s now deader than dead. And I’m no prognosticating octopus.

But then like a zombie — it’s always possible that until the legislature adjourns for the year the issue could arise as an amendment to another bill.

 As for that free Valentine’s Day divorce, Bentley’s website explains “the divorce is limited to an uncontested divorce with no or minimum child custody issues.” It was also limited to Michigan residents only and necessitated that entrants share “the most compelling and convincing story as to why they should be the winner.” But for any interested Michiganders, the deadline for submissions passed as of at 11:59 p.m. E.S.T., February 12, 2013.

photoTo his credit, Bentley’s promotional offer differed from one I blogged about two years ago, involving a free divorce offer by a UK law firm. Unlike that ‘deal,’ Bentley was generously picking up costs.

Law practice without law school.

Also percolating at the Arizona Statehouse a.k.a. Arizona’s “Meth Lab of Democracy,” is a bill sponsored by Senator Rick Murphy, SCR 1018, which would allow law practice without law school.

The Bill would amend the Arizona Constitution to prescribe that “The Committee on Character and Fitness may not refuse to recommend a person for admission solely because the person is not a law school graduate.”

LAW AND JUSTICE 63Senator Murphy, who’s not a lawyer but who says he’s hired plenty of them, thinks too much is made of law degrees.

So he was unperturbed when it was pointed out that a relaxation of schooling requirements for a state law license would mean fewer academic requirements than current state mandates of 1,300 hours of classroom training to cut hair and 1,600 hours to get a cosmetology license.

“You’re not going to damage anybody’s health by having an unsanitary law practice, although there’s lots of times when you deal with a lawyer that you end up getting your hair cut pretty bad,” he said.______________________________________________________________

* Under auspices of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), Gavel to Gavel reviews state legislation that affects the courts.

Photo Credits:”Arlanda Airport 14:32,” by Chun Kit To, combust, at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;”Thrill the world – Los Angeles,” by Ashley Webb, xlordashx , at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Head in Hands,” by Alex E. Proimos at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution;

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »